On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 12:45 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > Shaun: Brian, everything you replied to is what Claus said. I'm in total agreement with you.
> >>> I think we need to think about why we want end-users to use GNOME > >> 3.0. Or why we want them > >>> to use GNOME at all. Those are the messages we can market. (And we > >> know these, freedom, > >>> accessibility, usability, etc.) > >> To be frank, these are no benefits. For a potential user, it begs the > >> question: "Why should I care whether GNOME3 is "free", "accessible" or > >> "usable"? Millions of people use other desktops that are supposed to > >> be "less free", "less accessible" or "less usable" and yet these > >> millions of people do just fine. (And speaking freely, these can't > >> stand against the other important feature of a desktop: ubiquity.) > > That is simply not true. Because GNOME is free, the software is far > less expensive than other proprietary solutions. Therefore, people > who might not be able to afford a proprietary solution could consider > using GNOME instead. > > Using Microsoft Windows as an example. It does not meet Section 508 > Accessibility requirements out of the box as well as GNOME does. > Depending on the user's needs, many users need to pay additional money > to buy quality magnification, text-to-speech, and on-screen keyboard > software. In addition, many common applications do not support MSAA, > so some users need to additionally purchase further applications to do > common tasks. > > This can quickly add up to thousands of dollars. Some people with > disabilities are also financially disadvantaged (e.g. have trouble > finding work, or live in a 3rd world country where there are less > opportunities for the disadvantaged), so these proprietary solutions > simply are not viable. > > For many users with accessibility needs, the solutions provided by > GNOME are sufficient and come bundled with the operating system at > no extra cost. The ATK framework ensures that most GTK+ based programs > installed on the system are reasonably accessible, so there is no > need to purchase additional software. If you were to touch base with > people on the gnome-accessibility-list, I am sure you could find many > people who would confirm that they find GNOME a usable and less > expensive solution than the alternatives. > > Perhaps it would be good to spend some effort trying to recruit > npeople from places like the gnome-accessibility-list, and see if > we could get more marketing involvement from people who understand > these sorts of benefits in our marketing efforts. It would > probably also be helpful to get people from other forums, such > as from the translation community, who can help articulate the > benefits of the fact that GNOME is translated in more 3rd world > languages than proprietary solutions. > > If the GNOME community were better able to market these advantages, > then it seems likely that more people would be interested to try it > out. > > This is just using accessibility as an example, since it is one I > am more familiar with. > > >> From an economist's point of view, these are "experience qualities": > >> One has to "buy" the product before one is able to confirm these > >> qualities. Of course, GNOME is not bought but we need people to invest > >> their time to install it somehow. > > It is true that, from a marketing perspective, the GNOME community > could provide more case studies and testimonials to help people who > haven't tried GNOME to understand how well it works, and can meet > their needs. However, it isn't necessary for someone to install > GNOME to learn about its features and instill a desire to try it out. > > Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
